Establishment of Brahman 3.73

3.73

yadi matam ---
ākhyātapadārthamantareṇa na nāmapadārthānāṃ saṃsargaḥ /
kriyā hi padārthasaṃśleṣahetuḥ tadabhāve sākāṅkṣatvāt /
ataḥ siddho 'rtho brahmādirna śabdagocaraḥ padasyāviditasaṃgatitvenānavabodhakatvāt /
na vākyārthaḥ tasya saṃsargātmakatvāt /
kriyārahitānāṃ ca padārthānāmasaṃsargāt /
evamapi kriyābhyupeyatām /
taddvāreṇa ca padārthasaṃsargasiddhirāśāsyatām /
na vidheḥ kaścidarthaḥ /
sāpi ca kriyā sarvatra sulabhaivāśrūyamāṇāpyastyādiḥ ‘astirbhavantīparaḥ prathamapuruṣo 'prayujyamāno 'pi gamyate'; iti /
tatra brahmasvarūpapratipattiparaṃ vākyamastyarthaniṣṭham /
tannibandhanastatra padārthasaṃśleṣaḥ /
sattāyāśca prakṛtyaiva satpradhānatvāt taddvāreṇa viśiṣṭavastusiddhiriti /

If it is thought:
Without the meaning of a verbal form, there is no connection among the meanings of nouns.
For an action is the cause of the blending together of word-meanings, because in its absence there is syntactic expectancy.
Therefore, an established entity such as Brahman is not within the scope of a word, because a word, having an unknown relation [to it], does not convey meaning;
nor is it the sentence-meaning, because that consists in a connection,
and word-meanings devoid of action do not connect.
Even so, let an action be accepted,
and through that, let the establishment of the connection among word-meanings be expected;
there is no use for an injunction.
And that action too, such as 'is', even when not explicitly heard, is easily available everywhere, according to: 'The root *as* with a present suffix in the third person is understood even when not employed.'
There, a sentence whose purpose is to convey the essential nature of Brahman culminates in the meaning of the verb 'to be.'
The blending of word-meanings there is based on that.
And since being (sattā) is, by its very nature, predominant in what is existent, through that the establishment of the qualified entity is achieved.